Poster prepared by M. Collins, R. Christley, J.M. Bettridge, A.R. Walker and E. MacLeod for the Annual Meeting of the Society of Veterinary Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Madrid, Spain, 20-22 March 2013.

1. M.
Collins1,
R.
Christley1,
J.M.
Be4ridge1,
A.R.
Walker2,
E.
MacLeod3
1The
University
of
Liverpool,
InsFtute
of
InfecFon
and
Global
Health,
Department
of
Epidemiology
and
PopulaFon
Health
2Honorary
Fellow,
The
University
of
Edinburgh,
Royal
(Dick)
School
of
Veterinary
Studies
3The
University
of
Edinburgh,
School
of
Biomedical
Sciences,
Division
of
Pathway
Medicine
A
new
look
at
ectoparasites
affec1ng
indigenous
village
poultry
in
Ethiopia
Introduc1on
• Small
scale
poultry
producFon
in
Ethiopia
is
a
significant
contributor
to
the
livelihoods
of
poor
rural
subsistence
farmers.
• Research
shows
that
ectoparasites,
parFcularly
lice,
mites
and
fleas
are
common
in
scavenging
flocks
in
Ethiopia.
• InfestaFon
is
perceived
by
farmers
to
be
a
major
cause
of
bird
morbidity
and
mortality,
parFcularly
in
young
stock
(Fig.1).
• The
role
of
ectoparasites
within
the
wider
context
of
infecFous
disease
constraints
in
village
chicken
producFon
remains
poorly
understood,
in
part
due
to
the
complexity
of
correctly
speciaFng
ectoparasite
specimens.
• This
study
focuses
on
the
idenFficaFon
and
prevalence
of
ectoparasites
in
scavenging
chickens
and
forms
part
of
a
large
collaboraFve
project
invesFgaFng
the
disease
epidemiology,
socio-­‐
economic
dimensions
and
geneFc
diversity
of
indigenous
poultry
in
Ethiopia.
Methodology
• A
mulF-­‐stage
cross-­‐secFonal
study
was
conducted
over
4
sampling
periods
between
May
2011
and
October
2012.
• A
total
of
1266
healthy
adult
birds
in
640
households
were
examined
in
the
western
region
of
Horro
(n=635)
and
eastern
region
of
Jarso
(n=631),
and
a
further
30
birds
in
in
15
households
in
the
central
village
of
Godino.
• Visual
examinaFon
and
Fmed
counts
were
conducted
at
predilecFon
sites
for
ectoparasites
on
the
bird’s
body
(Fig.2).
Specimens
were
collected
and
stored
in
70%
ethanol
for
idenFficaFon
by
light
microscopy
at
x100
and
x400
magnificaFon,
using
10%
potassium
hydroxide
soluFon
to
clarify
samples
where
necessary.
Fig.2.
Sites
of
visual
and
3med
ectoparasite
examina3on
and
the
parasite
genera
expected
to
be
found
at
the
predilec3on
sites
on
the
body.
A
C
Results
• One
or
more
species
of
ectoparasite
were
idenFfied
in
777/1296
(60%)
of
the
birds
in
the
study,
with
426/635
(67%)
of
birds
in
Horro,
325/631
(52%)
in
Jarso
and
26/30
(87%)
in
Godino
showing
infestaFon
with
at
least
one
ectoparasite
species.
• Within
720
specimens
collected,
16
ectoparasite
types
were
idenFfied,
all
known
to
be
associated
with
clinical
disease
(Figs.1,2
and
3),
including
three
species
of
pathogenic
chewing
lice,
M.pallidulus,
M.cornutus
and
G.dissimilis,
not
previously
reported
in
Ethiopia.
• StaFsFcally
significant
differences
were
found
between
infestaFon
prevalence
at
the
3
study
sites,
with
a
greater
diversity
of
ectoparasites
infesFng
birds
in
Horro
than
in
Jarso
and
Godino.
Scaly
leg
mites
(C.mutans)
and
chewing
lice
species
(Fig.4
A-­‐G,L)
represented
the
most
commonly
idenFfied
ectoparasites
in
both
Horro
and
Jarso,
with
some
species
specific
to
each
region
(Fig.5).
The
sFck-­‐Fght
flea
(E.gallinae),
was
only
found
in
Godino,
where
it
was
the
dominant
species
infesFng
birds
(Fig.6).
• There
was
an
overall
41%
prevalence
of
scaly
leg
mite
infestaFon,
with
no
staFsFcally
significant
difference
in
prevalence
between
the
study
regions.
• Low
numbers
of
Fck,
Red
Mite
and
true
bug
samples
were
collected.
Poultry-­‐specific
Fck
species,
previously
reported
in
Ethiopia,
were
not
found.
Conclusions
• There
is
a
widespread
and
diverse
range
of
pathogenic
ectoparasite
species
infesFng
backyard
flocks
in
these
rural
communiFes.
However,
most
adult
birds
appeared
healthy
despite
high
infestaFon
prevalence
and
ectoparasite
burdens.
• The
discovery
of
novel
species
of
lice
not
previously
reported
in
Ethiopia
shows
that
ectoparasite
epidemiology
in
rural
seengs
is
not
fully
understood
and
calls
for
further
research
in
this
field.
• Clear
differences
in
species
diversity
between
regions
suggest
there
may
be
local
risk
factors
associated
with
infestaFon,
including
management,
environment
or
bird-­‐specific
factors.
Future
invesFgaFons
should
include
not
only
young
stock,
which
in
the
literature
and
by
farmer
percepFon,
represent
the
highest
risk
group
for
ectoparasiFc
disease,
but
also
pathogenic
ectoparasites
that
undergo
much
of
their
life
cycle
away
from
the
host,
such
as
sof
Fcks
(Argas
species)
and
blood
feeding
dermanyssid
mites.
• A
greater
understanding
of
ectoparasite
species
infesFng
flocks
can
be
used
to
tailor
guidelines
for
farmers
and
animal
health
professionals
on
local
ectoparasite
control.
The
provision
of
pracFcal
and
culturally
sensiFve
control
measures,
as
part
of
poultry
health
management
at
village
level,
is
currently
lacking.
Improved
housing
and
management
of
young
birds
could
offer
effecFve
means
to
minimize
and
prevent
ectoparasite
infestaFon.
Fig.3.
List
of
ectoparasite
species
iden3fied
in
the
study.
Colour
denotes
species
groups:
orange
–
chewing
lice,
pink
–
mites,
green
–
3cks,
blue
–
fleas
and
brown
–
bugs.
Fig.4.
Microscope
photographs
(x100
magnifica3on)
of
ectoparasite
species
isolated
from
birds
in
Horro,
Jarso
and
Godino.
Fig.5.
Ectoparasite
species
found
in
Horro
and
Jarso
over
the
four
sampling
periods
of
the
study.
Values
represent
the
propor3on
of
a
given
species
within
the
overall
number
of
samples
collected
Fig.6.
Ectoparasites
found
in
Godino
village
during
the
one
day
sampling
in
November
2012.
Values
represent
a
propor3on
of
a
given
species
within
the
overall
number
of
samples
collected.
Fig
1.
Specimens
and
clinical
signs
of
two
pathogenic
ectoparasites
found
in
village
poultry.
A
–
C.mutans,
the
scaly
leg
mite
(x400
mag.),
B
–
normal
feet
in
an
unaffected
bird,
C
–
Scaly
Leg
(exuda3ve
hyperkeratosis)
due
to
severe
C.mutans
infesta3on,
D
–
M.cornutus,
the
body
louse
(x100
mag.),
E-­‐
lice
infesta3on
(pediculosis)
around
the
vent
of
a
hen,
F
–
feather
loss,
inflamma3on
and
crusted
lesions
typical
of
pediculosis.
!
!"#$%#&! '())(*+*,)#! -(&.+&"#$%#&+
/#(01,"2%$,3+
4%&.1%56.%(*+
71#8%(6&39+1#"(1.#:+
%*+;.2%("%,!
!"#$%$#&'()*%+,#(&()!
"#$$%&!'%()!$%*+#! ,-./0#1!
2%3$(&.(#!
!
4%!
!"#$%$#&'()*-$../0(.()! 5%()!$%*+#! ,-./0#1! 2%3$(&.(#! 4%!
!"#$%$#&'()*)&,$1/#"()! 5%()!$%*+#! 6%&$7!89:#!91(!/98#!'.3(+! 2%3$(&.(#! "#+!
!"#$%$#&'()*(#2#+3#! 1;9! 1;9! 1;9! 1;9!
!"#+-+#*4$../#$"! <-9=>!$%*+#! ,-./0#17!>*30#)7!(*/0! 2%3$(&.(#! "#+!
5+#/+0")*4/4$)! ?938#!/-./0#1!$%*+#! ,-./0#1! 2%3$(&.(#! "#+!
5+#/+0")*0/))/1/./)! 53%&1!/-./0#1!$%*+#! ,-./0#1! 2%3$(&.(#! 4%!
5+#/+%+&")*4$../#$"* 6$*==!$%*+#! ,-./0#1! 2%3$(&.(#! "#+!
6/-"(,()*%$-+#/)* 2.18!$%*+#! ,-./0#1! 2%3$(&.(#! "#+!
7#"1/0+%+-&")*1(&$#)* </9$)!$#8!:.>#! ,-./0#17!>*30#)! 2%3$(&.(#! "#+!
8",1$#9))()*4$../#$"*
@#(!A%*$>3)!:.>#!
B%:#+>./!=%&$7!&.$(!'.3(+7!%//C!
:9::9$+!.1/C!-*:91+!
2%3$(&.(#! "#+!
:/%2*)-"%/");*
<1=.9+11$*>$,/"4$&(1*
<1=.9+11$*)--?*
*
@$"1$-'9)$./)*)--?*
*
!
D3%A./9$!'%1>!>./0!
1;9!
!
1;9!
!
!
E9::9$+7!:9.1$)!/9>>$#!
E9::9$+!91(!'.3(+!
E9::9$+!91(!'.3(+!
!
F=3./9!
!
2%3$(&.(#!
!
2%3$(&.(#!
!
"#+!
!
"#+!
A%'/0#+-'$4$*4$../#$"*
<>./0G>.8->!=$#9! 6%&$7!%//C!:9::9$+!.1/C!-*:91+!
D3%A./9$!93#9+!%//C!+*'G
>3%A./9$!>#:A#39>#!
"#+!
7/1"B*."%&(.$,/()* 5#(!'*8! ,-./0#1+!91(!-*:91+! 2%3$(&.(#! "#+!